CO2's Role in Global Warming Has Been on the Oil Industry's Radar Since the 1960s
Historical records reveal early industry concern with air pollutants, including smog and CO2, and unwanted regulation.

BY NEELA BANERJEE, JOHN H. CUSHMAN JR., DAVID HASEMYER AND LISA SONG
APR 13, 2016

The oil industry's leading pollution-control consultants advised the American Petroleum Institute in 1968 that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels deserved as much concern as the smog and soot that had commanded attention for decades.

Carbon dioxide was "the only air pollutant which has been proven to be of global importance to man's environment on the basis of a long period of scientific investigation," two scientists from the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) told the API.

This paper, along with scores of other publications, shows that the risks of climate change were being discussed in the inner circles of the oil industry earlier than previously documented. The records, unearthed from archives by a Washington, D.C. environmental law organization, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), reveal that the carbon dioxide question—an obscure corner of research for much of the 20th century—had been closely studied since the 1950s by some oil company researchers.

By the 1960s, the CO2 problem was gaining wider scientific recognition, especially as President Lyndon B. Johnson's science advisers and leading experts brought it to the attention of the White House in 1965.

"If CO2 levels continue to rise at present rates, it is likely that noticeable increases in temperature could occur," SRI scientists Elmer Robinson and R.C. Robbins wrote in their 1968 paper to API....

This is a story about how the world’s most powerful industry used science, communications, and consumer psychology to shape the public debate over climate change. And it begins earlier—decades earlier—than anyone suspected.

Explore our documents and discover what they knew, when they knew it, and how they collaborated to confuse the public, promote scientific theories that contradicted their own best information, and block action on the most important challenge of our time.

CO2's Role in Global Warming Has Been on the Oil Industry's Radar Since the 1960s
Historical records reveal early industry concern with air pollutants, including smog and CO2, and unwanted regulation.

BY NEELA BANERJEE, JOHN H. CUSHMAN JR., DAVID HASEMYER AND LISA SONG
APR 13, 2016

The oil industry's leading pollution-control consultants advised the American Petroleum Institute in 1968 that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels deserved as much concern as the smog and soot that had commanded attention for decades.

Carbon dioxide was "the only air pollutant which has been proven to be of global importance to man's environment on the basis of a long period of scientific investigation," two scientists from the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) told the API.

This paper, along with scores of other publications, shows that the risks of climate change were being discussed in the inner circles of the oil industry earlier than previously documented. The records, unearthed from archives by a Washington, D.C. environmental law organization, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), reveal that the carbon dioxide question—an obscure corner of research for much of the 20th century—had been closely studied since the 1950s by some oil company researchers.

By the 1960s, the CO2 problem was gaining wider scientific recognition, especially as President Lyndon B. Johnson's science advisers and leading experts brought it to the attention of the White House in 1965.

"If CO2 levels continue to rise at present rates, it is likely that noticeable increases in temperature could occur," SRI scientists Elmer Robinson and R.C. Robbins wrote in their 1968 paper to API....

This is a story about how the world’s most powerful industry used science, communications, and consumer psychology to shape the public debate over climate change. And it begins earlier—decades earlier—than anyone suspected.

Explore our documents and discover what they knew, when they knew it, and how they collaborated to confuse the public, promote scientific theories that contradicted their own best information, and block action on the most important challenge of our time.

Ohio ‘bailout’ plan part of larger debate over nuclear’s future

WRITTEN BY
Kathiann M. Kowalski
7 hours ago


PHOTO BY
FirstEnergy / Creative Commons

An Ohio utility’s pursuit of a lifeline for an aging nuclear plant comes at a time when both economics and public opinion are aligning against nuclear power.

On March 31, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio ruled that all FirstEnergy utility customers should guarantee sales for all electricity produced by the Davis-Besse plant along with certain coal generating plants in which FirstEnergy Solutions has an ownership interest.

The public debate around the plans has largely focused on fairness to consumers and competitors, but has occurred with a larger national discussion about nuclear power's role in a low-carbon future in the background.

Poll numbers released by Gallup last month show that, for the first time, a majority of Americans are opposed to nuclear power. The results follow “a downward trend in public approval of nuclear over the last six or seven years,” said Tim Judson, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service in Takoma Park, Maryland...

Super Delegate Bob Mulholland writes a blistering open letter to Bernie Sanders

Senator Sanders - Stop the Harassing Phone Calls


April 6, 2016


Dear Senator Bernie Sanders


I have heard many complaints from other unbound Delegates to our National Convention in Philadelphia (my hometown), about getting harassing emails, Facebook postings and phone calls, even to one woman at 10:30 at night, from some of your supporters demanding that we support you. We would expect this type of bullying tactics from Trump supporters. Roger Stone threatened on April 5th- he will send angry Trump supporters to the hotel rooms (Cleveland) of any delegates who betrays Donald. Do you have a similar Plan?


I have seen you on TV stating (demanding to many of your supporters) that Superdelegates should vote for the candidate that won their state. Really? Where is that in the National Delegate Plan that former Vermont Governor Howard Dean must vote for you? Congressman Raul Grijalva, a supporter of yours, who represents the 3rd district in Arizona, a state that voted 58% for Clinton and Grijalva's own district voted 61.7% for Clinton has not switched. Where is your letter to Congressman Grijalva, instructing him to shift his support to Clinton? Look in the mirror- you'll see a political hypocrite! From what I hear, Congressman Grijalva, when asked if he is shifting his support to Clinton, his response- drop dead. That is his right- he is a Congressman, thus a delegate.


Society has been trying to deal with High School bullies and the same Rule should apply to your campaign and your supporters. Us active Democrats enjoy healthy discussions and debates at meetings, Caucuses and Conventions but it is unacceptable for us to get harassing communications from bullies. As a Clinton supporter, I have not received harassing phone calls but it does appear women DNC Members are getting the brunt of the threats. Professionally, campaign staff and representatives should be the ones calling delegates. A 12 year old child answering the phone at home should not be hearing threats.

https://word-view.officeapps.live.com/wv/mWord.aspx?Fi=SDD4A32C37577B181F%21335&H=emul&C=5_810_BAY-SKY-WAC-WSHI&ui=en-US&rs=en-US&wdo=2&wde=docx&wdp=7&su=-3124605100262483937&ad=en-US&sc=host%3D&cy=canary&ak=t%3D0%26s%3D0%26v%3D%21AIETS4qnv3c9IhA%26aid%3D0a47350e-ab31-4930-8402-7c7e5272f70e%26m%3Den-us&wdMobileHost=2


https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?

Exclusive: President Barack Obama on 'Fox News Sunday

WALLACE: Worst day in the White House?

OBAMA: The day we traveled up to Newtown after Sandy Hook.

WALLACE: No explanation needed there.

OBAMA: No.

WALLACE: Biggest accomplishment?

OBAMA: Saving the economy from a great depression.

WALLACE: Worst mistake?

OBAMA: Probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya.

...

In Tripoli, Clinton Pledges U.S. Help to a ‘Free Libya’
By STEVEN LEE MYERS OCT. 18, 2011

TRIPOLI, Libya — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton pledged political and economic support for Libya’s transitional government on Tuesday, even as a senior administration official warned that Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi and his loyalists remained “a lethal nuisance” who could stall the country’s evolution.

Mrs. Clinton, the Obama administration’s most ardent champion of the NATO-led intervention, arrived here from Malta aboard an American military jet shortly after noon and was greeted by a phalanx of uniformed fighters, part of an irregular militia that now controls Tripoli’s airport.

...

“I am proud to stand here on the soil of a free Libya,” Mrs. Clinton said at an Islamic conference center in the capital after meeting with the country’s interim leaders, including the chairman of the Transitional National Council, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil.

Mrs. Clinton raised a host of issues with Mr. Abdel-Jalil and other Libyan officials, including the consolidation of political control, the prevention of violence against Colonel Qaddafi’s supporters and the integration of myriad rebel militias into a new security structure.

“Not all of the militias have yet come on board,” said a senior official traveling with Mrs. Clinton. “More are. More still need to come.”...

Hillary Defends Her Failed War in Libya
Few even noticed the weakest moment in the Democratic frontrunner’s debate.
Mike Blake / Reuters

Using contested intelligence, a powerful adviser urges a president to wage a war of choice against a dictator; makes a bellicose joke when he is killed; declares the operation a success; fails to plan for a power vacuum; and watches Islamists gain power. That describes Dick Cheney and the Iraq War—and Hillary Clinton and the war in Libya.

At Tuesday’s primary debate, Clinton was criticized not just for the Iraq War vote that cost her the 2008 election, but also for the undeclared 2011 war that she urged in Libya. The Obama Administration waged that war of choice in violation of the War Powers Resolution and despite the official opposition of the U.S. Congress. “Governor Webb has said that he would never have used military force in Libya and that the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was inevitable,” Anderson Cooper told the former Secretary of State. “Should you have seen that attack coming?”

Her answer included a broad defense of the war in Libya. “Remember what was going on,” she began, repeating a version of events that some intelligence officials and human rights groups doubt. “We had a murderous dictator, Gadhafi, who had American blood on his hands ... threatening to massacre large numbers of the Libyan people. We had our closest allies in Europe burning up the phone lines begging us to help them try to prevent what they saw as a mass genocide, in their words. And we had the Arabs standing by our side saying, ‘We want you to help us deal with Gadhafi.’”

She characterized the Obama Administration’s response as “smart power at its best,” saying that while America refused to take the lead in the war, “we will provide essential, unique capabilities that we have, but the Europeans and the Arabs had to be first over the line. We did not put one single American soldier on the ground.”

She then put a positive gloss on the war’s outcome. “I'll say this for the Libyan people…” she said. “I think President Obama made the right decision at the time...

Hillary and Bill and Paul Krugman Race to the Right to Stop the Bern
04/09/2016

William K. Black
Prof; Econ & Law, UMKC. Financial regulator. White-collar criminologist. Founding member, Bank Whistleblowers United. Author: The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One.

Remember several weeks ago when Hillary Clinton was complaining that Democrats did not consider her a “progressive?”

...In the last week, Hillary and her surrogates have pivoted hard right and retreated to their long-held positions on the major issues. Indeed, in several cases they have gone even farther to the right than the policies they pushed over a decade ago - even though those policies proved disastrous. ...

<snip>

...Bill made four key points about crime in his attempted defense and attacks on the protesters. First he claimed that his 1993 crime bill led to a huge decrease in crime. The reality is that street crimes were declining before his bill and the trend continued after the bill passed. (Elite financial crimes were surging due to the Clinton’s championing of the three “de’s” - deregulation, desupervision and de facto decriminalization of finance - but the Clintons and the authors creating and spreading the myth of the black and Latino “superpredators” ignored them.)

Second, Bill claimed that the bad parts of his crime bill were caused by Republican demands. Tom Frank’s book shows how the Clintons’ “pragmatism” and promises to work with the hard right led to him crafting a bill that produced the mass incarceration of Americans. This problem was compounded by his sentencing provision that punished crack cocaine users 100 times more severely (by weight) than powder cocaine users. When the bill was drafted it seems likely that the drafters did not know that crack cocaine was used overwhelmingly by blacks and Latinos and powder cocaine overwhelmingly by whites. A wide range of people eagerly created what social scientists call a “moral panic” about crack cocaine even though its effects were the same of powder. Bill’s crime bill achieved bipartisan support, including Bernie.

<snip>

Third, Bill moved so far right that he resurrected a racist position Hillary had enunciated (and later repudiated). Hillary attacked blacks who used crack as “super predators.” That phrase was crafted as part of the effort to generate a moral panic in order to produce the mass incarceration of blacks. CNN reported on Hillary’s use of the term.

“They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super predators,’” Clinton said in a 1996 speech, when crime was a major public concern, according to polls at the time. “No conscience, no empathy, we can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.”

Hillary was quoting phrases from three ultra-right authors that were Reagan officials...

The Chancellor
Vatican City, 8 April 2016

We're delighted to host this conference to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Centesimus Annus, bringing together world leaders, including US Senator Sanders, Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa, Bolivian President Evo Morales, Academicians of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences such as its President Margaret Archer, and leading scholars such as Professor Daniel Finn, Professor Jeffrey Sachs etc., to examine and discuss changes in politics, economics, and culture in the world these last 25 years in the light of Pope Francis' new encyclical Laudato si'.


Our intention is socio-political in the highest sense of the term, because according to art. 1 of our Statutes, the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences was established by the Holy Father John Paul II on 1 January 1994 with the aim of promoting the study and progress of the social sciences, primarily economics, sociology, law and political science.


Title I - Constitution and Aims of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences
Art. 1
The Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences was established by the Holy Father John Paul II on 1 January 1994 (AAS 86 [1994], 213), with the aim of promoting the study and progress of the social sciences, primarily economics, sociology, law and political science. The Academy, through an appropriate dialogue, thus offers the Church the elements which she can use in the development of her social doctrine, and reflects on the application of that doctrine in contemporary society. The Academy, which is autonomous, maintains a close relationship with the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

(Signed)
✠ Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo


http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000153-f6c8-de5b-adf3-ffec5f1f0000

1. “LAUDATO SI’, mi’ Signore” – “Praise be to you, my Lord”. In the words of this beautiful canticle, Saint Francis of Assisi reminds us that our common home is like a sister with whom we share our life and a beautiful mother who opens her arms to embrace us. “Praise be to you, my Lord, through our Sister, Mother Earth, who sustains and governs us, and who produces various fruit with coloured flowers and herbs”.[1]

2. This sister now cries out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible use and abuse of the goods with which God has endowed her. We have come to see ourselves as her lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will. The violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life. This is why the earth herself, burdened and laid waste, is among the most abandoned and maltreated of our poor; she “groans in travail” (Rom 8:22). We have forgotten that we ourselves are dust of the earth (cf. Gen 2 ); our very bodies are made up of her elements, we breathe her air and we receive life and refreshment from her waters.

<snip>

My appeal

13. The urgent challenge to protect our common home includes a concern to bring the whole human family together to seek a sustainable and integral development, for we know that things can change. The Creator does not abandon us; he never forsakes his loving plan or repents of having created us. Humanity still has the ability to work together in building our common home. Here I want to recognize, encourage and thank all those striving in countless ways to guarantee the protection of the home which we share. Particular appreciation is owed to those who tirelessly seek to resolve the tragic effects of environmental degradation on the lives of the world’s poorest. Young people demand change. They wonder how anyone can claim to be building a better future without thinking of the environmental crisis and the sufferings of the excluded.

14. I urgently appeal, then, for a new dialogue about how we are shaping the future of our planet. We need a conversation which includes everyone, since the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots, concern and affect us all. The worldwide ecological movement has already made considerable progress and led to the establishment of numerous organizations committed to raising awareness of these challenges. Regrettably, many efforts to seek concrete solutions to the environmental crisis have proved ineffective, not only because of powerful opposition but also because of a more general lack of interest. Obstructionist attitudes, even on the part of believers, can range from denial of the problem to indifference, nonchalant resignation or blind confidence in technical solutions. We require a new and universal solidarity. As the bishops of Southern Africa have stated: “Everyone’s talents and involvement are needed to redress the damage caused by human abuse of God’s creation”. [22] All of us can cooperate as instruments of God for the care of creation, each according to his or her own culture, experience, involvements and talents.

15. It is my hope that this Encyclical Letter, which is now added to the body of the Church’s social teaching, can help us to acknowledge the appeal, immensity and urgency of the challenge we face. I will begin by briefly reviewing several aspects of the present ecological crisis, with the aim of drawing on the results of the best scientific research available today, letting them touch us deeply and provide a concrete foundation for the ethical and spiritual itinerary that follows. I will then consider some principles drawn from the Judaeo-Christian tradition which can render our commitment to the environment more coherent. I will then attempt to get to the roots of the present situation, so as to consider not only its symptoms but also its deepest causes. This will help to provide an approach to ecology which respects our unique place as human beings in this world and our relationship to our surroundings. In light of this reflection, I will advance some broader proposals for dialogue and action which would involve each of us as individuals, and also affect international policy. Finally, convinced as I am that change is impossible without motivation and a process of education, I will offer some inspired guidelines for human development to be found in the treasure of Christian spiritual experience.

16. Although each chapter will have its own subject and specific approach, it will also take up and re-examine important questions previously dealt with. This is particularly the case with a number of themes which will reappear as the Encyclical unfolds. As examples, I will point to the intimate relationship between the poor and the fragility of the planet, the conviction that everything in the world is connected, the critique of new paradigms and forms of power derived from technology, the call to seek other ways of understanding the economy and progress, the value proper to each creature, the human meaning of ecology, the need for forthright and honest debate, the serious responsibility of international and local policy, the throwaway culture and the proposal of a new lifestyle. These questions will not be dealt with once and for all, but reframed and enriched again and again.

Chapter One

...